Smith Leaning Towards Michigan and Ohio in the Same Division

Per ESPN, Gene Smith favors the concept that Michigan and Ohio should be in the same Division, nothing new for Mgoblogers. Not locked in stone, but leaning in that direction as DB feels similarly.

Smith said he has had informal discussions with Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon about the two teams being in the same division and that both sides were open to the idea. In an email to ESPN.com, Brandon said, "I would certainly not be opposed to being in the same division as OSU if it was in the best interest of our conference. I look forward to the discussion with my colleagues and our conference leadership."

"Going into the meetings, we would be leaning toward being in the same division," Smith said. "But there might be something that comes up in the [AD meetings] that could change our minds."

I think DB is just being political with his statement. If Michigan and Ohio being in the same division is best for the conference, well, he doesn't have to "fight" for it. If they aren't, then he can speak up as to why that's the best thing for everyone and throw his weight around.

Agreed. If DB were to say "I want UM and OSU in the same division and I don't really care about every one else" then he would polarize the rest of the schools against him, and he needs their support on this. His best angle is to say that being in the same division is good for the conference.

but I do think it is better if we are both in the same division. I don't like the idea of playing twice in one year. Now, Wisconsin, Nebraska and others are going to joke like that is never going to happen anyways. However, with the way Hoke and Meyer are recruiting I see that possibility of us meeting twice being very strong. It sounds good in principal, but I think it would not be fun, especially if the team that won the BIG championship game was different from the team who won the regular season finale.

This has more to do with you hating Gene Smith than the rest of your comment. But I cannot stand Gene Smith, I still think he should've been canned for the Tressel debacle. In my opinion, Smith knew a heck of a lot more about that situation than was led to believe and he used Tressel as the Scape goat. No respect for him. As far as the divisions, i agree with you as well. Playing twice per year would not be as special as having one Saturday all year that we all circle on our calendars.

I find it odd that any OSU fans would "hate" Gene Smith. You can view his tenure one of two ways: first (the OSU slappy way)-- he has been responsible for/at the helm of what has been a "Golden Age" of OSU athletics (read: Football and Men's basketball) where OSU has been a dominant program for a decade plus. The second way (the correct way) is that he is an unethical weasel who has overseen the AD while OSU has been cheating like a motherf*cker in both Football and Men's basketball for a decade plus thus allowing them to cheat their way to elite status in the two programs. Because of his past NCAA connections, he was still beneficial in keeping OSU from getting the punishment they truly deserved from the NCAA for their decade plus of cheating in Football.

One thing you might not know about Gene Smith is that he is one of the few people on the selection committee for the NCAA. In 2011 when we were the number one overall seed, fans believe he put us in the hardest bracket with SEC champ, ACC champ, 2nd best Big East teams and good midmajor. I bet you if Michigan gets the #1 overall seed and he screws you over you'll be on the hate wagon too. Don't worry their is more than enough room.

I hate myself for asking this, but it may come up: Would you rather have Michigan and Ohio State in the same division, or the Michigan vs. Ohio State game the last game of the regular season. If they blackmailed us with one or the other, which would it be?

Im assuming you are implying in this scenario that the OSU/Mich game would not be the last game of the year if in the same division? That a tough call. Id probably vote for them to play against one another the last game of the year.

I think them in the same division would help to ensure the last game if the year and prevent back to back weeks in a rematch. All teams should play their final regular season against a divisional opponent to keep this from happening (ucla vs Stanford). I know this is not possible with 14 teams.

I always presumed, without anybody formally acknowledging it, that Michigan and Ohio State were separated into different divisions by the will of the other schools, who could not in good conscience go back to their alums, donors and fans and explain why they might be in a division in which neither Michigan or OSU would be an every-year game. For what it's worth, I still think that could be a problem.

But whatever it takes to insure that the last game in November will always be Michigan and Ohio State is all that I care about.

It's a silly hypothetical, because the league almost certainly wants the November games to be intradivisional. It doesn't want teams to play in the last or next-to-last game of the year and then playing right after in Indianapolis. The best chance of guaranteeing that the Game will be always at the end of the regular season is for us to be in the same division.

Last game of the season, absolutely no doubt. The chance of a scenario where both teams have already locked up a spot in the B1GCG before the last week of the season is miniscule. Chances are far, far better that at least one team will have the division on the line, if not both teams.

The Game was meant to ruin the other teams season after teams worked so hard and developed their teams. Furthermore, changing the date disturbs other natural things that happen behind the game. These include:

OSU vs. Michigan Blood Drive

Hate week (I'm curious though as to what Michigan students do to prepare themselves should anyone care to share).

Mirror Lake Night

Inset whatever else goes on at Michigan

Lastly, I don't think anyone can stomach losing twice a week. If we all had to choose between the following, should both teams make it to the title game, it would be to win twice.

Win-Win

Lose-Win

Win-Lose

Lose-Lose

Losing sucks and from experiece I can say the depression that results from it last for about a good month!

This is my biggest concern with the new divisions. I also think that 2 of either Nebraska, PSU, or Wisconsin should also be in the division with UM and ohio (and presumably MSU). I know it is hard to pick who will be the best teams in the future but I can't stand the idea of having UM and OSU in one division with Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, and Maryland. Not only is the schedule boring but it could also lead to a year where one of the teams has cross-division games against some other bottomfeeders.

My vote goes to Wiscosin mainly because they have the best stadium and gameday atmosphere that I've been to of the three. Moreover, I will say that since Wisconsin is getting better over the years it would serve them well to face the better teams in the conference more often. Iron sharpens iron.

At first I mistakenly thought this was going to be about Durham Smythe leaning towards Michigan because I totally quickly misread the title. I was really disappointed to see that it was something about Gene Smith. Then I actually read the thread and got excited again. I vote for a straight up east/west split. Maybe swap MSU for either Indiana or Purdue and make MSU a protected rivalry game. I think it's pretty balanced competitively and obviously geographically. I also think it would be neat to have all four of Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota in the same division.

The problem is Michigan and Ohio State are the two league powers -- at least on a consistent basis.

Since the 1960s, if they were separated into divisions today (obviously as well as we can, given the Neb/PSU additions), OSU and Michigan would've won division titles and met in the championship game 40 some times.

Do we really want to put both powers in one division?

I know it makes sense from the perspective of THE GAME, etc. and I think overall I agree they should be, but the above is about the only argument otherwise that I can think of.

Rivalries belong in the same division. That way the two schools compete for everything - on the field and in the division standings. Their game carries the utmost significance that way. The SEC, Big 12 and Pac-12 understand this. The only conference that doesn't (besides us for the time being) is the ACC. Which model do we want to follow?

Nebraska has been an equal power, if not a greater power over that same time period. 4 national titles (5 if you count the one they didn't earn) since 1970. We shouldn't discount that just because they weren't yet in the Big Ten.

I wouldn't mind being in the opposite division as Ohio if it wouldn't put us at such a big disadvantage vis-a-vis our other divisional opponents. But if we must play Ohio every year and Nebraska only plays them once every six years, then we are really hurting our chances.

The league is trending back to the big two, and the recruiting ranking show that distinctly. It's not good for the league to have the second best team finish third in the conference, behind the ccg loser. And no other pair of schools is the same draw as Ohio and Michigan. There is no other matchup combination that remotely interests anyone nationally. I think having one of these teams in competition every year hurts the brand

Yes, but if that'e the case, think about how bad the national draw will be for a game that happened just one week prior. Does a national audience want to watch the same two teams play for the second consecutive week, or would they rather see the winner of that game take on another team who is likely pretty good (and also at least a semi-power)?

Point is, whoever wins the UM-OSU division will likely be a top team, probably with play-off implications every year, so whoever they play in the BTCG will make for a big game nationally.

Your point about the second best team finishing third in the conference makes no sense. Who says they're third? In fact, they'd most likely get the BCS bid over the champ game loser in your scenario.

If we're not in the same division as Ohio, I don't think we can be assured that the Game will stay where it is. It definitely makes more sense for the league to have the division rivals play each other in November, so there are no rematches within a week or two.

I feel its in Michigans Best Interest to be in seperate divisions.It makes our path to the Conference title game easier..A Loss to OSU is out of Division and that matters in a tie breaker. Playing them twice? How many times have you wished to have another crack at them? its novel, wont happen often, just every once in a blue moon...I vote for seperate but equal divisions

They should be. It's not reasonable to play in back to back weeks when only one of those games earns you a ticket to the Rose Bowl. If we won the first game and lost the second, and OSU was sent to the RB because of that result, I think this board would meltdown.

Play for Conference Title? National Championship? Or play Ohio in the last regular season game? Since my preference is the first 2, I'd rather Michigan was in a different division without a fixed cross divison game against Ohio every year.

There are multiple goals. Sure, winning a national championship is big, but it has to go through OSU, it just has to, and them through us as well. In years where a national championship or ever a Rose Bowl is out of the cards by November, we always have OSU. It's tradition, and one of the best in the country.

The first goal is to play Michigan football, and part of Michigan football is playing Ohio State.

If the B1G kept UM and Ohio in separate divisions and did away with protected cross-over games, that might not be so bad. First, instead of one rotating crossover game per season, there would be two. That means UM would play Ohio 2 out of every 7 years in the regular season, in addition to possible BTCG matchups. If UM met Ohio in the BTCG, say, 3 of every 7 seasons, then we are looking at playing Ohio an average of about 5 times every 7 years (of course, some of those years could overlap, which would be unfortunate). I could live with that.

Maybe, but those aren't the only two options. The option that this thread is advocating is for us to play OSU in either Columbus or AA, and the winner (presumably) can play someone else in the soulless NFL stadium.

That way the winner of the WOO division has an easy road to the Rose Bowl and since whoever wins the B1G will have came from that division and played tougher teams, they'll be more ready to compete in the BCS game.

Side note: When the B1G gets Georgia Tech, they go to the WOO division.

But the other division could have Nebraska, Penn State and Wisconsin, and that's not really a lower tier. In every conference where there are divisions, it always looks like one is better than the other, and sometimes that flip flops. Right now, the top 2 teams in the Pac 12 are Stanford and Oregon, and they're in the same division. FSU and Clemson are in the same division of the ACC.

Hell, ten years ago the SEC East was king and the West was garbage, and 2 years ago it was the exact opposite. If the other division has Nebraska and Wisconsin (likely), it's hard to say they're a lower tier considering those were the two teams who played for the leage title this year, one of which has made 3 straight Rose Bowls.

Well the problem becomes that one division is top loaded with Michigan and Ohio while the other conference is deeper and probably tougher. I think having Michigan and Ohio in different divisions makes them easier to balance.

I feel like then we would have all the same problems we have now (imbalanced schedules, teams not playing each other, risk of re-matches in conference title game, etc.), plus an increased reliance on tie-breakers.

One of the things that sort of irritated me when they put us and our archnemesis in Columbus into separate divisions is that, either way you slice it, the loser of "The Game" is not going to the BTCG more than likely anyway most years. However, if both Michigan and Ohio State are in the position of running away with their division, then "The Game" loses some consequence in that regard in that one team could win it, then in the BTCG, the other team could win and the whole ordeal is a wash on some level, at least in my view. That bastardizes the rivalry a bit, in my mind.

I would prefer having both teams in the same division really because I expect both teams would be #1 and #2 in the division more often than not going forward with the staffs they have and the game should have - as it did before - even more immediate implications, such as the chance to go to the BTCG and, by extension, the Rose Bowl. Those sorts of implications made the game incredibly exciting more often than not. The prospect of sending Ohio State home with nothing in the way of a conference championship has always been a nice prospect.

The same division makes sense, if one of us beats the other, why should they have to beat them again? Of course, it would help if one of us actually got to the B1G title game. I think being in he same division would make it seem like the old days, play for a chance to win the B1G title.

As long as we are still the last game on each others schedules before the end of the regular season, I'm cool with it. We ruin each others seasons enough where the divisions don't really matter anyway.

I get that, but there are two things about it that really bother me. First, that there will be a number of years where we play them two games in a row. Second, the part that bothers me even more than that is that in most of those years, one or both of those teams will have the division title already wrapped up, and they'll know that they're in the championship game win or lose.

I'm not saying the teams won't try when that's the case, but it just won't be as fun for the fans. And it will suck for everyone who buys tickets to the first game, when by gametime everyone will know it's the first of two games, the second of which means more.

Ok, I think its easy to say that OSU and Michigan will most likely collide in Indy. How about we use the 2013 season as a test drive to see if we even like meeting twice, TV ratings, emotions behind playing twice and so forth. This is a good year to experimet before Delany changes anything. If we like it keep it the same, if we don't change it.

Delany has stated that geography will play a much larger role and that crossover games are far less important. If he sticks to that, I will propose a simple East/West plan. Only one pair of teams by coordinates get moved. Purdue to the East and MSU to the West.

Michigan and MSU could play a crossover game preserving that series. The trophy games are still pretty much in tact except for the Little Brown Jug. I don't think either side would really care if there was a break between games. If you do add teams in the future and you are sticking to geography only 1 or 2 teams get moved bringing some stability to the expansion.

Granted this is done with very little thought to geographics, which I don't think matters:

Legends
Michigan
Ohio
MSU
Maryland
Minnesota
Purdue
Indiana

Leaders
Nebraska
Wisconsin
PSU
Iowa
Northwestern
Rutgers
Illinois

It would be nice to poach a GA Tech, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, or laugh all you want...Duke....hey it would help hoops out! Not that the B1G needs to be stronger in hoops...it will be interesting to see what happens with Duke if the ACC goes bye-bye.

1. by being in separate divisions, it becomes a competitive disadvantage for both M and Ohio because we would still have a protected crossover game every year, where others in our division would have protected crossovers against crap teams, making our strength of schedule more difficult year in and year out.

2. the obvious possibility of back-to-back games which has been discussed.

3. it makes the rivalry mean so much more.

4. It works because if MSU is not in our division, they could still be our protected rivalry game. The only rivalry game we could lose out on every year would be the Little Brown Jug -- does anyone care THAT much?

Proposed divisions (the same as umbig11 proposed above actually now that I look at it):

The reasons why I like the division matchups and think they are good for the conference are as follows:

1. It allows the major programs, Michigan and Ohio, to get yearly access to huge markets and alumni bases in NYC and DC, which is good for the BTN's prospects and the many thousands of fans of either school on the east coast. (while also keeping Penn State in the mix in the east -- something they really want.)

2. it protects all the rivalries in the Big Ten, when considering protected crossovers as well.

3. The competitive balance is still there. The East has 3 traditionally great programs, and the West would be anyone's division on a yearly basis.

Of directional terms for division names makes no sense to me, they should have no bearance to future expansion. I don't mind leaders and legends...they aren't great, but really, is divisional names that big of a deal? Who cares, I wish they would spend more time coming up with a better symbol besides B1G.

How about we re-hire Bill Martin instead of sitting and watching Brandon DESTROY our Athletic Department. I read in Three-and-Out and Martin seems like a much better fit as AD. IIRC, he was responsible for nothing but greatness while he was here. We miss you Bill.

At this point, I am neutral. To me, this isn't really the Big Ten anymore. It's some TV focused marketing deal that won't make any sense at all in five or six years when cable packages are history. So, put us in the same division and have The Game played at 8:30 at night in September at Yankee Stadium. Both teams can wear alternate uniformz with advertising. It would have about as much to do with tradition as Rutgers and Maryland in the Big Ten.